https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nenpouseijigaku/72/1/72_1_81/_pdf
The aim of this paper is to examine how political polarization (factional division) leads to the retreat of Democracy. To achieve this, a systematic analysis is conducted from both macro and micro perspectives using multinational panel data (140 countries, 1975-2019, V-Dem/V-Party) and cross-regional survey data (74 countries, 2010-2020, WVS/EVS).
Through multinational data analysis, it is shown that political polarization at the elite and voter levels contributes to the decline in the legitimacy of elections and supports the acquisition and maintenance of power by illiberal political parties that disregard democratic norms. Such illiberal regimes erode democracy, especially the autonomy of judiciary, parliament, media, and the rule of law.
Furthermore, through survey data analysis, it is demonstrated that political polarization not only widens the partisan gap in perceptions of election fairness (ruling party supporters highly rate the fairness of elections while opposition party supporters suspect electoral fraud), but also decreases the overall perception of elections being fair even if clean elections are conducted. The decline in the perception of election fairness leads to the acceptance of political violence and authoritarianism (authoritarian leaders or military rule).
Additionally, this paper examines factors contributing to the expansion of political polarization (such as election timing and government corruption) and the impact of political systems (risks associated with parliamentary systems or single-member districts) on the retreat of democracy.
When the ruling party and the opposition are at opposite extremes, there is a mechanism where even if the ruling party behaves recklessly, it is perceived as “better than the opposition.” (blu3mo)
Gap in perception of fairness
Premise of democracy:
Elections are a fundamental institution of Democracy. For elections to function as a means of political mediation, there must be a shared understanding among people that free and fair electoral competition resolves political disputes as the “only game in town” (Linz and Stepan 1996). This common understanding relies on “the winner’s restraint” (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018) where the winning party adheres to democratic norms and institutions in governance and election management, and recognizes rival forces as legitimate counterparts for discussion, compromise, and competition, as well as the “loser’s consent” (Anderson, et al. 2005) where the losing party and its supporters accept the election results as legitimate. Without both elements, democracy cannot function.